The executive branch can nuder the supreme court

[g5000]

State nullification and the impeachment of judges has been an issue since the founding of our country. But the impeachment of Old Bacon Face established a very, very high bar for any subsequent impeachments of judges, and no one in this topic has made an argument which succeeds.

 

[Auld Phart]

I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.

What the heck is "nuder"?

the last dancer wore a G string and pasties. The second dancer only wore a G String, making her nuder than the first.

 

[g5000]

Another great moment in the nullification debate: Daniel Webster's second reply to Hayne

 

[koshergrl]

They're non-elected, appointed asshats. They are dispensible, they can and should be replaced when they **** with the constitution.

Yeah, throw the bums out for not being the elected officials they were never intended to be. And, man oh man, if one of them performs his Constitutional duties by deciding what is Constitutional and what is not then let's string 'em up because someone in a trailor park sees it differently.

If by "interpreting" the constitution, they are creating new law, then no..they don't get to do that. and when they do, we need to kick them out and start over. Or just start over and tell them to get it right. We don't have to tolerate that bullshit.

You don't get to decide who gets kicked out of the Supreme Court. The Legislature gets to decide that and you get to vote for them. Your use of the word "We" is being used quite liberally. I doubt many Americans share the opinion of the OP. You guys are just a bunch of whiny bitches when things don't go your way. That's how our Republic works.

As I said, Congress or the Executive branch could deal, but they won't, because they're traitors.

Just like you are.

Oh, I see. Good luck with your revolution. We'll be right behind you...chuckling.

No, you really won't.

 

[Syriusly]

I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.

I don't want a nuder Supreme Court.

They frankly could all where Burkas and I wouldn't be too much.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, throw the bums out for not being the elected officials they were never intended to be. And, man oh man, if one of them performs his Constitutional duties by deciding what is Constitutional and what is not then let's string 'em up because someone in a trailor park sees it differently.

If by "interpreting" the constitution, they are creating new law, then no..they don't get to do that. and when they do, we need to kick them out and start over. Or just start over and tell them to get it right. We don't have to tolerate that bullshit.

You don't get to decide who gets kicked out of the Supreme Court. The Legislature gets to decide that and you get to vote for them. Your use of the word "We" is being used quite liberally. I doubt many Americans share the opinion of the OP. You guys are just a bunch of whiny bitches when things don't go your way. That's how our Republic works.

As I said, Congress or the Executive branch could deal, but they won't, because they're traitors.

Just like you are.

Oh, I see. Good luck with your revolution. We'll be right behind you...chuckling.

No, you really won't.

Too late.

 

[Unkotare]

The question is, will the President pardon the crimes against spelling on this thread?

 

[koshergrl]

If by "interpreting" the constitution, they are creating new law, then no..they don't get to do that. and when they do, we need to kick them out and start over. Or just start over and tell them to get it right. We don't have to tolerate that bullshit.

You don't get to decide who gets kicked out of the Supreme Court. The Legislature gets to decide that and you get to vote for them. Your use of the word "We" is being used quite liberally. I doubt many Americans share the opinion of the OP. You guys are just a bunch of whiny bitches when things don't go your way. That's how our Republic works.

As I said, Congress or the Executive branch could deal, but they won't, because they're traitors.

Just like you are.

Oh, I see. Good luck with your revolution. We'll be right behind you...chuckling.

No, you really won't.

Too late.

You won't be laughing in...hmmm...about a year. I promise you.

 

[Auld Phart]

The question is, will the President pardon the crimes against spelling on this thread?

He might, but I doubt Michelle would.

 

[g5000]

"I don't like the judge's decision" is not a legal basis for impeachment, and that's basically what we have heard here.

 

[HappyJoy]

You don't get to decide who gets kicked out of the Supreme Court. The Legislature gets to decide that and you get to vote for them. Your use of the word "We" is being used quite liberally. I doubt many Americans share the opinion of the OP. You guys are just a bunch of whiny bitches when things don't go your way. That's how our Republic works.

As I said, Congress or the Executive branch could deal, but they won't, because they're traitors.

Just like you are.

Oh, I see. Good luck with your revolution. We'll be right behind you...chuckling.

No, you really won't.

Too late.

You won't be laughing in...hmmm...about a year. I promise you.

Because the Supreme Court 'traitors' will be thrown out of the court? That is what you've been talking about.

 

[Ernie S.]

I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.

What the heck is "nuder"?

I think it's kind of like castrate.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, **** the judicial branch, what have they ever done for us?

They're non-elected, appointed asshats. They are dispensible, they can and should be replaced when they **** with the constitution.

Yeah, throw the bums out for not being the elected officials they were never intended to be. And, man oh man, if one of them performs his Constitutional duties by deciding what is Constitutional and what is not then let's string 'em up because someone in a trailor park sees it differently.

If they did their Constitutional duties and enforced the Constitution, then there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is they don't limit the other branches to doing only Constitutional things, which is their duty and they legislate, which isn't their duty

 

[g5000]

I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.

What the heck is "nuder"?

I think it's kind of like castrate.

No, that would be "neuter".

 

[HappyJoy]

I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.

What the heck is "nuder"?

I think it's kind of like castrate.

Is that a serious answer?

 

[kaz]

Yeah, **** the judicial branch, what have they ever done for us?

They're non-elected, appointed asshats. They are dispensible, they can and should be replaced when they **** with the constitution.

Allie...you're still mad about Brown v. Board of Ed, aren't you?

Bam! When the left start race whoring is when we know even you know you're losing the argument!

 

[koshergrl]

As I said, Congress or the Executive branch could deal, but they won't, because they're traitors.

Just like you are.

Oh, I see. Good luck with your revolution. We'll be right behind you...chuckling.

No, you really won't.

Too late.

You won't be laughing in...hmmm...about a year. I promise you.

Because the Supreme Court 'traitors' will be thrown out of the court? That is what you've been talking about.

No because the transformation of our country isn't going to stop, and it isn't going to be good, and you will be crying like a whiny *****.

 

[kaz]

I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.

What the heck is "nuder"?

I think it's kind of like castrate.

No, that would be "neuter".

Thank God, I was really fighting the visual of a nuder Supreme Court. Ginsberg for example, shudder ...

 

[NightFox]

I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.

...Or perhaps a sympathetic executive branch could just refuse to enforce whatever decision the SCOTUS decision in question is, it's not like SCOTUS has any enforcement arm of it's own. As long as Congress doesn't intervene with say impeachment there's really no recourse for SCOTUS in such a situation.

"(Chief Justice) John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it. The decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," -- Andrew Jackson, commenting on the SCOTUS Worcester v. Georgia decision.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, **** the judicial branch, what have they ever done for us?

They're non-elected, appointed asshats. They are dispensible, they can and should be replaced when they **** with the constitution.

Yeah, throw the bums out for not being the elected officials they were never intended to be. And, man oh man, if one of them performs his Constitutional duties by deciding what is Constitutional and what is not then let's string 'em up because someone in a trailor park sees it differently.

If they did their Constitutional duties and enforced the Constitution, then there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is they don't limit the other branches to doing only Constitutional things, which is their duty and they legislate, which isn't their duty

First off, the Supreme Court doesn't just say "Hey, we need to look at that law you guys jjust passed!", it has to bubble up to them through the courts.

Secondly, there are many interpretations about what is Constitutional and what is not. That is why you have a Supreme Court molded by the elected offices of the Executive and Legislative branches and a step away from on-demand democracy where opinions are more volatile. It's a pretty good system, not perfect, there is no such thing.

Anyway, I wish you guys luck in nothing coming of this.